Contributors

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

The Michael Jordan Generation

My senior year in high school was pretty amazing for a number of reasons. The first was that I had a fucking killer girlfriend. Gorgeous, fun, opinionated, highly intelligent and so much more, she really set the tone for what kind of woman I would be attracted to over my life. In addition, I had a great group of friends, was very involved in the TV studio and theater at the school, and had a great little business I had started painting and detailing windows. I only had a few customers but I made great money for 1984.

It was that same year that my beloved Chicago Bulls finally saw a ray of light and hope join their team in the form of the best player to ever play the game. He averaged 28 points a game on just over 50 percent shooting that season and became an instant star. Just a few years later, he led the Bulls to the first of 2 threepeats. His name was Michael Jordan and there is no doubt in my mind that he is responsible for the giant pile of shit that currently is American culture.

Now, I like Mike as much as the next person. I'm even a huge fan of sports and enjoy watching it regularly. But if you are someone who grew up during his era, you were socialized at a very key point in the development of our culture. And, as I will illustrate, it's not really Mike personally that was (and still is) the problem. It was the institutions in our society and the interactions that our citizens have with them that created the malaise. And its zenith was Michael Jordan so, like doctors that get diseases named after them, I am naming this one the Michael Jordan Generation (MJG).

We are not a nation of rugged individualists. I know that's going to send many commenters here into anaphylaxis but people aren't perpetual soloists in a culture as developed as ours. How we function in the interactions with our society's institutions (functionalism) and with each other (symbolic interaction) dictates our behavior. I've always been a blank slate fellow. I don't agree with Rousseau's concept of innate goodness nor do I think that we are all wretched sinners who need Jesus to save us. Being a believer in Christ means coming to Him of your own free will, not scoring brownie points in either beating yourself up or feeling guilty because you think someone's ass (male or female) is hot. You are a blank slate and the teachings of Christ...your belief in him...and your interactions within Christianity (or whatever you believe in) help to define who you are along with the multitude of other things with which you interact. 

Something else that is important to note here before we proceed further is that human beings are emotional. Trying to remove that element completely in any sort of analysis is pure folly. We are not Spock. You can pretend you are but then you would be a liar--as are many of my commenters who claim to rational and logical but then say things like

I'd ask if you've been sippin' the stupid juice, but it's more like you've been gulpin' it.

Comments like these are a daily occurrence here. I have no problem with people saying any of this stuff. Where I have a problem is with the hypocrisy. Emotions enter in to who we are as people and how we make decisions every day. These emotions arise from interactions with other people (such as in the comments sections of a blog) and they fill in the blank slate of who we are and who we become. They CHANGE us. You may have the conceit that by posting on a libertarian blog that you are sharing your rugged individualism with others but you are, in fact, interacting with people in a symbolic way which alters your behavior. This is a collective influence not an individual one. 

The main reason why I mention emotions,though, is what arises out of them: desire. We desire to fit in and function in our society and when we don't, we experience anomie or normlessness. We've all had the experience of seeing a McDonald's ad on television and then being hungry for a cheeseburger. I've even gone out and bought one before. On a very low level, this is operant conditioning. Desire, however, comes from repeated interaction with the people and institutions in our lives and that is much more powerful.

So, we are not a culture of islands. When we interact with our family, our peer group, our community, our schools, and the mass media (the five main areas of socialization), we behave in certain and distinct ways as a result of those interactions. There is no doubt in my mind that this was the case with Jared Loughner, the shooter in the Arizona Safeway massacre. His interactions with these five areas made him who he is today. Nikto spoke of this in his post yesterday. Somewhere along the line Jared's blank slate was filled in with socialization that led him to believe that shooting people was perfectly acceptable. Time and again we see examples like this and it illustrates a very key failure of the right wing and libertarian philosophy.: People don't operate in a vacuum. Of course, it would be wrong to say that personal responsibility shouldn't be considered at all. It's equally as wrong to say, however, that Jared's interactions played no part at all in what he did and it's just his individual fault. It's both.

There was a time when the first four of these areas were more significant. These smaller spheres had a great deal of influence on filling in the blank slate. Today, however, the mass media is the most significant and its influence has become so overwhelming in defining our culture and our interactions with the people in our family, peer groups, community and schools that, as an instructor, I can't even come close to competing with it. We have been socialized by the mass media to be ADD and want that "bright, shiny object." This brings us back to Mike.

The people that are parents today grew up seeing Mike hawk cars, clothes, soft drinks and shoes. This is how they have seen success defined: extrinsically. Hawking these items has been around forever but not at such a monumentally high level as when Mike showed up. Because of this Niagara Falls type inundation, this is how they raise their children. They have turned them into consumer drones giving in completely to the emotion of envy...of wanting to have the latest thing to make their lives happier. There are exceptions to the rule, of course, but generally parents today and even some people in the mid 20s who aren't parents have been conditioned to believe that Michael Jordan is the pure embodiment of success and that our lives should be patterned after him. Mike is a shining example of the fact that the first four areas of socialization have all succumbed to this model of achievement and have altered their function within our culture.

We have, I fear, been changed for the worse because of this.

Parents now raise their children to be superstar athletes and adjust their lifestyles accordingly. Take the example of hockey in my state of Minnesota. It is played year round here starting at the age of 3. It costs thousands of dollars to play and if you were a kid who just wanted to play for fun, you can pretty much forget it. There are practices 4-5 nights a week with games on the other nights. These games are just as competitive and important to parents as the NHL. Fights break out often in the stands. We see them on the news and I see them all the time. Hockey is only one example. This rigorous level is seen in virtually all other sports.

Sadly, this mindset is so consuming that parents are, what I call, COP...Checked Out Parents. Their desire to have the "bright, shiny object" is so overwhelming that their involvement in socializing their kids is often non-existent. And it's not just because of sports as we will see shortly.

Peer groups have become part of the chain as well. If you don't play a sport, you are either "gay" or "retarded." From this we have seen the rise of increased competition in a variety of other sports like swimming and Ultimate Frisbee-a game that used to not have any refs. Everyone has to play a sport so they can be like Mike. Teens geek out on Facebook and YouTube to sports related activities which is pretty much everything now. My favorite bands from the UK are all massive Premier League fans...living and dying with a sport that encourages and rewards mediocrity.

It's important to note here that this mentality goes beyond sports. Sports is merely a spring board into the material and consumer based mentality that has permeated every level of our age cohorts, our peer groups, and, thus, into our families. To be cool, you have to be consumed by some or several areas of media. If it weren't for Harry Potter or Twilight, I have to wonder if young people would event talk about books at all! Even Harry Potter is like Mike...clothes, shoes, soft drinks...

Communities gear their city operations around sports due to the increased demand. Gyms open at 5am for practice and some games don't start until 9pm due to such high demand. A community is more attractive if they have 2-3 hockey rinks. Basketball training facilities have popped up around my town in the last few years so kids can play year round. Their goal? To be like Mike...cars, clothes, shoes, soft drinks.

Perhaps the worst culprit are the schools. Sports has always been important in schools but today it is their culture. Want a kid to do his work in class? Show him or her you know something about sports. Then you're cool and they will get it done. And why are they cool? Cars, clothes, shoes, soft drinks...all things we have been trained to envy, desire, and believe we will get...so we have been told and shown by the Michael Jordan Generation which essentially runs our country. As I have stated above, this model carries over into other areas besides sports. Honestly, it's all aspects of the mass media working on steroid overdrive to sell, sell sell! And one is not a complete person unless one has these things.

I can't compete with that. I can show them things that I think are cool like how our government operates or the history of our country. I can try to connect them with things they like today (which are all consumer driven) but it's mostly futile. It's not what I say, it's what they see. I had a student tell me the other day that he was going to be LeBron. I pointed out the percentages of that happening and he would have none of it. The MJG has told him otherwise. Big house filled with riches....cars, clothes, shoes, soft drinks...

Again, I must confess that I am as much of a sports maniac as all of them. I play and coach tennis. I do like to win. I am emotionally down for a day or two after a Vikings loss which, after this season, was quite a bit. But I don't have those glassy eyes of a fucking zombie and the seemingly never ending desire to raise my children in a pro athlete style. My children play sports but I teach them that they are a part of life, not a lifestyle. Most Americans want a lifestyle and they are too lazy and impatient to have a life. Life is about learning a variety of skills that will help you earn a living and contribute to the community where you live. Most parents do not teach their children this and it's because they believe in the bill of goods that has been sold to them by the mass media. It will somehow happen instantly if you...just buy this pair of shoes...like Mike's shoes...

My favorite line from Inside Job comes from Andrew Sheng, a Chinese economic advisor. "Engineers build bridges...Financial advisors build dreams. And when those dreams become nightmares..."

That first line really made me think. What do we build these days? This is the fundamental difference between our country and China. They are building things...making things...and we really aren't. We desire a lifestyle filled with leisure and, thus, people make shit loads of money off of services in this country.  I have a friend who used to be in the NBA that owns one of those basketball gyms. What exactly is he offering society? There are businesses in China that are building machines to make solar power an efficient alternative to coal and oil. People around the world are buying this technology. How can the global market "buy" a training session from a former NBA player? Why would they even want to? Why is having this training so important to have in America? They can pretend for an hour or two that they are Mike. Cars, clothes, shoes, soft drinks....ironically, most made now in other countries!

I've been asked several times on this blog to point to ways private corporations and the wealthy people that run them are in control of our lives and directly harm us on purpose in the name of profit. I've offered some small and specific examples but they were mere threads in one giant quilt. The answer to these continued questions is much larger than some of the small examples I have mentioned.

Sit back and think about what I have written regarding the mass media's victory over the other four areas of socialization. Think about how they permeate every aspect of our lives now. Imagine what our culture was like before Michael Jordan (car, clothes, shoes, soft drink) and what it's like now. On a systemic level, it has, I fear, been irrevocably changed.

Now, ask yourselves....

Who owns the mass media?



38 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is your 'uber-post'?

I don't even have to comment, luckily, because several of your former students are here on your blog.

Former pupils! Are you really as stupid as Mark says you are? Do/did you think you were 'going pro' for your career?

If you didn't, Mark is lying. If you did, Mark is calling you an idiot. I'm just curious which is correct.

Tess said...

I'm actually curious that someone who posts as "Anonymous" has the gall to ask for personal information. If you have something intelligent to offer, do so and with a screen name. Otherwise, don't waste our time.

I've read this twice now and have to say it's one of the best pieces you have ever written. The way we interact does change us. Take a look at how texting has changed the way we communicate. Talking to someone is considered weird now and people gripe to me all the time, "Why didn't you just text me that?" I don't know. Maybe it's just that I want to talk to you! Our culture does change as a result of interactions.

The sports thing as well is way out of control. Every football team in my town is as revered as the NFL. Schedules and lives are re-arranged for the games each week. Many people I know operate under the same delusion you are talking about here, Mark. It's all corporate driven and that's the only message that gets through to people in this day and age.

Tess's Best Friend said...

You aren't anonymous, because you are 'Tess'? Do you actually know a soul here? Post full name and hometown please or shut the fuck up you stupid cunt.

Angela said...

Wow, Tess, looks like you really got to someone. Anyone here want to take this poster to the boxing ring like you do with Mark all the time for not making an intellectual argument?

Getting back to the point-this is a great post and the lack of comments are interesting. I think it might have something to do with the demolition you performed of a central right wing belief. We DON'T operate in a vacuum. It IS both. This whole notion that people move through their lives autonomously is ridiculous. It's a miracle and very rare if some kid from a fucked up home turns out normal. Most of the time they don't. Even if it isn't a fucked up home our culture identifies itself in certain ways and you have defined the vision perfectly here Mark.

Angela's Stanky Taint said...

So the 'central right wing belief' is that they operate in a vacuum?

So true. Right-wing vacuum operating pricks run this country.

Way to tell 'em Angie!

Last in line said...

Random tidbits...

I agree with some of the points in the piece. I agree that we are all participants in society but I do think we all have a choice as to what level we participate in all this rampant consumerism because a lot of this is only pertinent to those who buy into it all. I don’t.

I agree that our society has ADD (as a general rule). We want our problems solved right away with the least amount of hassle possible.

Mark and I have talked before about people not living a life, they live a lifestyle. What they buy, what they wear, where they go on vacation, what they drink, et all is set by trends and my view of people who follow trends is that they have very few original thoughts as they let other people make most of the above decisions for them. A lot of people look back on their life as they get older and realize they have always done what other around them expected them to do. Speaking for myself, I’m not a sheep that lets society dictate to me what I should and should not be doing.

As far as adults go, there is very little we can do to change someone else unless the change is endorsed by the person who needs the help, therefore I’m pretty mush a live-and-let-live person...just don’t send me the bill for your idiocy.

Labeling something an "addiction" has become a convenient way to legitimize a whole range of unacceptable behavior from drug use to high level philandering to computer use to obesity (have you heard the latest stories on the studies done on "food addiction"? What a joke). All of these people who have committed these deplorable, hurtful and harmful acts against themselves, and the people who care about them, aren't so bad now because, as everyone knows, addiction is a disease, therefore none of it is their fault. I am not quite buying the "addiction" line anymore. Their problems stem more from a lack of maturity, an unwillingness to shoulder adult burdens and a shirking of responsibility, both for themselves and the people around them. Does looking at porn all day eventually desensitize a man, disconnect him from reality and make him yearn for a fantasy life? I do not disagree. But before it rises to the level of "addiction" it starts out as poor impulse control, most of which, I believe, hearkens back to my original premise, which is just that people don't want to grow up and be responsible for themselves, let alone the for the commitments they have made to anyone else. They'd rather do what feels good.

Larry said...

Angela, is that like a prick-enlarging vacuum? And they run the country? No wonder there's so much email spam!

Mark's point seems to be, "Isn't it terrible how those evil corporations mind-control people via the mass media, so that people do things that corporations like, so that corporations can go on being all corporationy-like? They make people all materialistic and like, shallow, you know? Wouldn't it be better if the mass media trained people to be more like what I think people should be like?"

Sub-text: obviously such an important job couldn't be left to the profit motive. Look what that's led to! It would have to be centrally run. Maybe it could all be unified into one integrated whole. Perhaps it should have name reflecting its importance to social well-being. Something grand. Maybe the "Ministry of Truth"?

Normal person's explanation: Many (most?) people like sports. Sports is quite competitive and always has been, in any culture. The media reflects people's interests, it doesn't create them. Lord knows it never stimulated any interest in sports in me.

People are also generally materialistic. People buy lots of crap because they can now, and there's lots of wealth to be frivolous with, to the extent any person wants to be frivolous. Mark's complaint is absolutely no different than similar complaints going back nearly as far as written records exist, and yet is still drivel today.

TheBigGig said...

Concerning "What do we build these days? This is the fundamental difference between our country and China. They are building things...making things...and we really aren't.

This is a myth.

According to data assembled by Dr. Mark Perry, in his article in The American (12/23/2009) titled "Manufacturing's Death Greatly Exaggerated," "For the year 2008, the Federal Reserve estimates that the value of U.S. manufacturing output was about $3.7 trillion." If the U.S. manufacturing sector were a separate economy, with its own GDP, it would be tied with Germany as the world's fourth richest economy. The 2008 GDPs were: U.S. ($14.2 trillion), Japan ($4.9 trillion), China ($4.3 trillion), U.S. manufacturing ($3.7 trillion), Germany ($3.7 trillion), France ($2.9 trillion) and the United Kingdom ($2.7 trillion).
U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 19.5 million jobs in 1979. Since 1979, the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by 40 percent, and there's every indication that manufacturing employment will continue to shrink. Because of automation, the U.S. worker is now three times as productive as in 1980 and twice as productive as in 2000. It's productivity gains, rather than outsourcing and imports, that explains most of our manufacturing job loss.
U.S. manufacturing is going through the same kind of labor-saving technological innovation as agriculture. In 1790, farmers were 90 percent of the U.S. labor force. By 1900, only about 41 percent of our labor force was employed in agriculture.

screwyourfacts said...

You can use fancy facts to prove anything that is true.

Obviously you don't understand Mark's point. Which is typical. He is so far beyond you people, I don't know why he bothers trying.

TheBigGig said...

Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things

oojc said...

that they have very few original thoughts as they let other people make most of the above decisions for them

Well said. The lack of original thought in this country these days is stunning. And food addiction? I agree with your ex-Gov up there...yeah, they have a gland problem-SALIVA gland. They can't push themselves away from the table.

No Thoughts of My Own said...

That's right oojc! I often cut and paste someone else's thoughts, and then bitch about the lack of original thought in this country.

You are so right!

jeff c. said...

I guess you can't agree with someone on this blog without getting yelled at either.

I'd say I agree with you on this for the most part, Mark. That's why I laugh and often scoff at those who vilify Big Government. Big Corporations run our lives and are the main way we learn how to behave. Government used to set an example for a civil an organized way to live our lives. Now the government is threatening and evil so people tune out and turn on to the latest hair spray that will make them look better.

Something else that I noticed that was funny was your ideas about blogs being a community as well. The "rugged individualists" all fall in line together over at The Smallest Minority. It's no wonder you stopped posting there (hint: I really want to know!). They are like a group of rabid dogs. If you ask a question they don't like, it's SWARM time.

GuardDuck said...

Hmm, did you actually ask a question, or just post an insinuation with a question mark at the end?

Mark Ward said...

Great comments, last. Y'know, I was going to use your example of the small town shop owner who bought the Mercedes but I thought you might want to share that sometime in a comment.

BigGig-I don't doubt your facts. I probably should have been more specific in my example with China. I was looking more at the future and faulting our shift to a service based economy as being a fault. Also, compare the intrinsic motivation between China and the US. Granted, they have more people but it seems we'd rather be the NBA wannabe than an engineer...which, btw, is what I tell most of my students to try to be. Engineers build bridges...

Jeff-good point about TSM. I guess I'll answer your question. I stopped posting over there (and likely never will again) because I saw myself as part of the problem. It's funny looking at all of this now in the context of the AZ shooting. It seems like stopping was a much better idea than I thought at the time. The titanic level of rage (nearly all of it completely unjustified) had gotten so bad that I had to honestly look at even the simplest level of participation as being detrimental. Unless I was in complete agreement with them or said something they liked, it was a heap of rage. The ideology that I have laid out in this post was born out of some of my experiences there. My interaction with them made them worse, not better, and their anger, especially at the end, concerned me a great deal. Kevin said once "Don't piss off the white people." He's right. Anything that happened after that would have been partly my fault.

I know that a few posters from there post here as well so that's cool. Maybe today's post by Nikto (going up in about 30 minutes) will bring more since the subject is guns. I'm hoping for some reflection but I won't be holding my breath. This one is going to be a doozy!

Mark Ward said...

Hey, oojc, how did you get something in italics? I'm lazy and haven't figured it out yet?

You are so right said...

You hit it right on the head Jeff! I've never actually wasted my time at TSM, and don't know anyone that posts there, but I know for a fact that it is filled with poser-anarchists who would run home crying if the government wasn't there to protect them.

They scream constantly that they want to kill all liberals, but howl if someone with common sense and compassion tries to be civil at Huffington post.

oojc said...

Follow the instructions for tags right below the comment box but make sure to put / before the last 'i' tag if that makes sense

Last in line said...

Are some of you folks on here really that big on how China is doing nowadays? I know blk has talked up China on here several times.

Larry said...

I know I'm not. Of course, one reason China is getting lots of business is because they have very cheap labor, next to non-existent environmental protections (there may be laws, but there's so much corruption, they're not enforced because officials are on the take or because official policy dictates that a particular industry/plant is too important to let anything get in the way). The Chinese want to get rich because they know first-hand how much it sucks to be poor. They've got a rapidly aging population, thanks to the one child policy, and that will cause problems in years to come, much like Europe and Japan are beginning to experience. I wouldn't count America out by any means, unless we continue to run business out of the country with higher and higher taxes and more and more burdensome regulations.

juris imprudent said...

We are not a nation of rugged individualists.

Surprise M, no shock here - except perhaps that I don't disagree with you. For the most part, we are far from rugged, and sadly, many are all too glad to suck tit for all they are worth. We are a nation that is a mix of people and individual styles - a concept that you appear to have a great deal of difficulty with.

dictates our behavior

That I will disagree with you on. Our behavior is not a programmatic response. For a supposedly nuanced thinker - you are terribly black and white.

So let's get down to brass tacks...

We've all had the experience of seeing a McDonald's ad on television and then being hungry for a cheeseburger.

No. We all have not. You have at the very least one data point in disagreement with your thesis - yet you re-iterate it without modification. That is intellectually dishonest and is counter to the 'critical thinking' which you so pride yourself on. Again, this is why I talk about you arguing only with the voices in your head - and ignoring anything said here that contradicts the neat little boxes and dialogues therein. Mustn't upset the narrative! Re-FRAME, RE-FRAME, urp, squeek, glorp!

Time and again we see examples like this and it illustrates a very key failure of the right wing and libertarian philosophy.: People don't operate in a vacuum.

All this statement proves is that you don't grasp the arguments being put before you. You can only put it in terms of "those opposed to me"; right-wing does not equal conservative does not equal libertarian does not equal anarchist - but you mush those together into a single bogeyman. Right down to the "W" level (you're either with us or agin' us).

I'd curse you and say think but I realize that is as pointless as yelling at someone drowning to "swim dammit".

juris imprudent said...

One other point that appears to have eluded you about the MJ world you believe in - it is all about inequality. The Jordan Era if you wish to call it that includes the exacerbation of income inequality as a fundamental feature. Personally, I've never had a problem with how much money MJ, or Tiger Woods, or anyone else makes - but I know most liberals get a lot of heartburn over that. Is MJ to blame for that? How is it even wrong or bad? How has it harmed you?

There is another facet to this - the infamous Jordan Rules. You know, how he got to play by one set of [unwritten] rules while his opponents were held to the actual written ones. What does that remind me of?

TessEatsAngie said...

Do you girls have anything to add? Because based on your stupidity here I have to assume you are both stupid cunts that haven't had an intelligent thought since your last boyfriend slapped one into you.

Speaking Truth said...

Chameleon, knock off the crude attacks. You're not helping anything. Some of us are trying to get the other side to break out of their shell and actually understand things. You're just playing into their prejudices, which makes things worse.

(Clearly Blogger isn't deleting stuff due to profanity.)

GuardDuck said...

To be fair to the chameleon, I can empathize with the frustration that prompts such outbursts.

When the owner of this blog won't even answer a simple question that would set the ground work for a discussion starting with the basics it's very hard to not get frustrated with the intransigence displayed.

Mark Ward said...

"No. We all have not."

So, what you saying here is that you are not susceptible to operant conditioning? Hmmm....methinks the Pavlovian response is lost on you...

juris imprudent said...

So, what you saying here is that you are not susceptible to operant conditioning? Hmmm....methinks the Pavlovian response is lost on you...

You just can't stand the thought that people really are different from you? That whatever you think, feel, believe must be true for everyone. What an unbelievably narcissistic and immature view of the world. No wonder you wallow in the adulation of your inept little Greek chorus.

Are you really the same person that read and intelligently discussed an article that challenged you?

Are you that intent on retreating into a protective shell from the harsh reality that the country rebuked your vision, your dreams, your hope?

Are you really so attached to your theory that any data that does not compute must be dumped into a memory hole, never to trouble your little mind again? Trust me, no one would ever mistake you for anything approaching Spock - not even Benjamin Spock.

Project, re-frame, squawk, errrp, bleeck!

How I understand now what you were saying then - you were describing yourself.

Whomever chameleon is, I think that is a person you have become deserving of - even if your other readers are not.

GD, I have certainly been hard, perhaps even brutal, on M and his merry little band, but I see no excuse for this chameleon. Whoever you are, you are a form of scum that will never be missed when gone.

Mark Ward said...

It's not a question of people being different from me. In this particular case, it's a matter of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning

I'll grant you that you may never have seen a McDonald's commercial and then gone to McDs and bought a cheeseburger. But are you saying that your brain is somehow immune from marketing?

GuardDuck said...

Fair enough Juris, wasn't trying to apologize for him anyway.

juris imprudent said...

I'll grant you that you may never have seen a McDonald's commercial and then gone to McDs and bought a cheeseburger.

Which invalidates the statement you made. How now are you going to deal with that? Are you going to modify your thesis or continue to attack the inconvenient datum?

I'll make it easy and ask which are you actually talking about here M, classical or operant conditioning? Because you appear to have them confused (since you mentioned operant in the context of Pavlov which is classical).

This is another of your little games, a particularly uninteresting one.

Let's see how you respond to this. Ding!

[Hint: M will ignore the disconnect between data and theory and then go into some discourse elaborating on his ignorance on my latter question. This is very predictable.]

jurismakesmeashamed said...

No he won't. He will pretend your question never happened. Much more predictable.

Why do you bother? Trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (and REALIZING that is what you are doing) kinda makes you the dumb one, doesn't it?

Doesn't it?

Mark Ward said...

Actually, my question would be for both operant and classical conditioning. In case you haven't gotten it yet, the McD example was meant as more of metaphor. I'd accept your word if you said it never happened literally in the strictest way I described.

But I would like to know if you think are immune to marketing which has its roots in both types of conditioning.

juris imprudent said...

In case you haven't gotten it yet, the McD example was meant as more of metaphor.

Oh, sure, sure it was. Yeah, I believe that - NOT.

So now, instead of figuring out how to adjust your thesis to fit the data, you say it wasn't really a thesis, just a metaphor. That is called moving the goalposts - but you knew that, as it is part of the standard methodology of Markadelphia as documented at TSM.

But I would like to know if you think are immune to marketing which has its roots in both types of conditioning.

Really? Because conditioning requires a stimulus response that reinforces. So let's take the case of cheeseburgers. If you really like eating them (like one of Pavlov's dogs) then to some degree you might be at least susceptible to some form of conditioning. This might even be slightly believable except for the chain of events that actually intercedes the stimulus and response (namely, you haul your fat ass off the sofa, drive to McDonalds - and not just the nearest burger joint, order and pay for the meal, at which point you finally arrive at the pleasureful reinforcement of the stimuli - consuming the cheeseburger). Now quite frankly, if your taste in cheeseburgers is sated by the dreck that McDonalds serves, you deserve to be a slave to their advertising. I love a good cheeseburger, so naturally I'm not drawn to McDonalds no matter how much they advertise.

Of course, it just doesn't actually work that way, does it?

I don't buy ANY of the products (e.g. beer) that are most heavily advertised, and I really like beer. So if your stupid theorem held even a drop of water, I'd be buying Bud lite or Coors and I don't.

But I will grant you, there must be a fair number of weak-minded folks in the world, you admitting to being one, that make advertising pay off. Computer spamming actually proves this, as for all the worthless crap that hits your inbox - some morons actually click through and get their off-brand Viagra or whatever. If NO ONE ever took the bait, there would be no spam as there wouldn't be a pay off - even to what is virtually free advertising.

Oh, and to the other poster, I suppose there are two motivations here for me. One is indeed the vain idea that M might actually learn something - and you are probably right, that makes me as big a fool. The second is the same reason Kevin Baker never banned M from TSM - he provides the perfect foil for deconstructing the poverty of thought on the left. There may be a reader who stumbles across this and goes "hmmm". Although in all likelihood, that is probably as empty and vain a possibility as my first motivation.

Mark Ward said...

Juris, if you are immune to marketing more power to you. Most people are not. Unless you never watch television, listen to the radio, read magazines or surf the internet, chances are you are being influenced. I suspect that you are somehow and that's why you are so pissy about this. I've noticed that the angrier you get usually means that I've hit close to home on something. Years of posting here and over at TSM has proved conclusively to me that libertarians, classic liberals or whatever you want to call yourselves are control freaks. Anaphylaxis sets in when topics like this come up. It's like you all become Alexander Haig.

But hey, I could be wrong. Bravo if you can resist the corporate influence!

Anonymous said...

No Mark. I'm guessing that all of the 'conservatives' here are pissy because you have shown glimpses of intelligence in the past. Unfortunately, your inexpicable adherence to this 'Right-wing vitriol causes murders' blog-fest is causing many to question the return on the time investment.

Here's some good old-fashioned advice for all:


Never try to teach a pig to sing. It makes you look stupid and annoys the pig.

juris imprudent said...

Juris, if you are immune to marketing more power

Still attacking the data rather than changing the theory I see. Do you buy shit beer just because it is advertised - usually with lots of hot chicks? Really? I guess so, since you buy McDonalds just because they have effective advertising. They control you - bwahahahahahaha!

Immune. That is a strange word to employ, but I guess it says a lot about what you 'think'. You suffer from a disease and anyone immune must be wrong somehow, they should be suffering too.

I've noticed that the angrier you get usually means that I've hit close to home on something.

That's wonderful that you believe that M. A very useful rationalization. Really protects the old ego, doesn't it?

My anger rises when I can't believe that someone can be as stupid as you pretend to be, or when I feel that someone is not arguing in good faith but is playing some psychotic little game. Maybe you aren't stupid or mentally ill; you're just a liar of epic proportions. A childish creature so insecure that if any of his cherished notions are challenged he has to resort to any tactic so he can feel like he won. That makes me sad and feel terribly sorry for those around you, particularly the children you are supposedly entrusted to teach.

udintdeserveme said...

"My anger rises when I can't believe that someone can be as stupid as you pretend to be, or when I feel that someone is not arguing in good faith but is playing some psychotic little game. Maybe you aren't stupid or mentally ill; you're just a liar of epic proportions. A childish creature so insecure that if any of his cherished notions are challenged he has to resort to any tactic so he can feel like he won. That makes me sad and feel terribly sorry for those around you, particularly the children you are supposedly entrusted to teach."

Amen Brother.

You all have a good time here.

Anonymous said...

Who owns the mass media?

George Soros just flat-out bought 100 reporters.